Group items tagged

The use of force constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. It is analyzed by courts under an objective reasonableness test: the amount of force used in any police encounter must be reasonable in relation to the risks presented. Deadly force is acceptable only if an officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officer or others. When an officer exceeds these bounds, supervisors and departments may be subject to liability. Use of force occurs in a relatively small number of interactions between the police and public, but the potential costs in terms of dollars, reputations and lives demand that resources be allocated toward its management. Through standards, education and technology, departments can effectively and proactively limit their exposure to these costs.

A fitness test is an effective and legal device for screening first responders, but only when designed and implemented in a particular way. Though some believe that the daily demands of public safety professionals are enough to maintain adequate levels of fitness, this is a faulty and dangerous assumption. Even though the most common tasks performed by first responders do not involve physical exertion, the primary goal of training and fitness should be to ensure that first responders are able to get to, control and remove a threat to public safety. Because individuals with poor fitness may be incapable of performing these essential tasks, departments with lax or no standards are at risk for lawsuits based on negligence and deliberate indifference. Implementing overly-stringent standards is hardly a panacea for a department's litigation woes. If standards are based on, relative to, or disparately impact members of a protected class, then rejected applicants may allege discrimination under state or federal law.

When law enforcement agents head into an interrogation room, they are tasked with getting to the truth of an investigation. They must do so while protecting themselves and the rights of the individuals they are questioning. Since the early 1900s, federal agencies were banned from using audio records of suspect statements without special approval. More than a century later, however, the U.S. Department of Justice changed that policy, mandating that federal agencies record video of all interrogations of suspects in custody, whenever possible.